Why Public Schools Fail; J. L. Payne

Now, an exhaustive study by political scientists John Chubb and Terry Moe, published in the De cember 1988 American PoliticalScienceReview, documents the theory behind this difference. Pri vate schools are better, say Chubb and Moe, be cause they are better organized to deliver quality education. Private schools face a market test: If parents and students aren't satisfied, they leave the school and stop paying tuition. This propels pri vate schools to structure themselves so they can deliver a better product. When a public school starts deteriorating, on the other hand, the tax monies keep coming in. Hence inefficient ar rangements persist. What are the patterns of successful manage ment that the private schools have adopted? From their survey of 500 schools, Chubb and Moe document how the private schools differ from the public ones. First, in private schools, the Mr. Payneis an independentpoliticalscientistwho livesin Sandpoint,Idaho.

higher, distant authorities like boards and super visors have less power. In the public schools, the school boards and supervisors try to micro-man age the schools-leaving principals and teachers frustrated. This contrast, by the way, holds up even for the Catholic schools: The higher ecclesi astical authorities meddle less in their schools than· public school boards and supervisors do in theirs. Another difference is that private schools have more flexibility in personnel policies. The proce dures to fire someone are less complex and take less time. Thus private school managers can more easily discharge unsatisfactory personnel. Fur thermore, private schools are more focused and coherent in their orientations. Different private schools may offer different approaches, but with in each school, Chubb and Moe found more clari ty on goals and less disagreement among the staff than prevail in the typical public school.

Another key difference is with the principals. As documented by Chubb and Moe, the private school principals have more teaching background than public school principals. They are less inter ested In administrative duties than their public school counterparts, and more interested in edu cational philosophy. Also, private school princi pals are much less likely to be seeking career ad vancement. The result of these differences is that private school principals are educational leaders. This is less the pattern in the. public schools where principals, hemmed in by higher authori ties, regulations, and unions, tend to be seen as bureaucratic managers. With the principal given so much authority in private schools, what happens to morale and staff 225 relations? To hear the unions tell it, without the government and union "protection" found in the public schools, private school teachers must lead a miserable life. Well, it isn't so. Chubb and Moe found that the work context is more rewarding for a teacher in a private school: principal-teacher relations are better; teacher-teacher relations are more cordial and more supportive; teachers have more influence in every phase of the school, from choosing texts and deciding what to teach to es tablishing standards for discipline and home work. Private school teachers "feel more effica cious than public school teachers. Unlike their public counterparts, they do not believe their suc cess is beyond their control, and they do not feel it is a waste of time to do their best."

In monetary compensation, private teachers lag behind. This, say Chubb and Moe, is perfectly understandable: "Private school teachers are trading economic compensation and formal job security for superior working conditions, profes sional autonomy, and personal fulfillment. Public school teachers are doing precisely the opposite." What the unions and the politicians have over looked is that job satisfaction for teachers de pends on having the flexibility to accomplish the mission of education. The regulations and re straints that enmesh the public school are under mining everyone's morale. So even though we are pouring more and more money into public schools, the quality goes down. Of course, there are some good public schools with effective programs. What the Chubb and Moe study givesis the overall, nationwide pattern. And that picture clearly shows that the lesson of the market applies to education, too: Where con sumers are free to choose, suppliers organize themselves to deliver a superior product. D 226 Fairness Doctrine, R.I.R by Jorge Amador O n August 4, 1987,the Federal Communi cations Commission (FCC) repealed most aspects of the "Fairness Doctrine,"